[community] communicating inclusive design en masse

Thu Jul 7 20:07:57 UTC 2016

 Hi Lucian

Thanks for bringing up some substantial issues.

I agree that the digital and solid should not be considered as distinct
modalities when it comes to design. But there is a need for some point of
focus. That point should be in my opinion, communication networks and
access to data information and knowledge upon which those networks are
based.

To some extent the affordances provided by networks and digital
communication frameworks developed over the last 35 years have provided
access to inclusive designers to low hanging fruit. This has been
productively gathered and transformed into a desirable and consumable salad
with benefits that can be communicated in a straight-forward manner.
However people cannot flourish on fruit salad alone.

Yes certain people, who are uniquely excluded in specific ways, are to some
extent no longer excluded to the same extent. That progress has not costs
the non-excluded much, while at the same time allowing some unique
contributions to the greater good, by people who where previously excluded,
that otherwise would not have been possible. Finally new and useful
strategies for dealing with everyday constraints have been modeled in ways
that can be seen to benefit all, thereby building connections between more
excluded groups and less excluded groups.

Those three successes match Jutta's summation of the inclusive design value
proposition.

1. We are all unique
2. We need everyone’s unique contribution
3. We are all connected.

However, recent events suggests that a rephrasing of the concept of
inclusion is necessary. Many people within disadvantaged demographic groups
feel disabled by the system around them. This is true regardless of whether
they living: Black lives or Muslim lives or Psychotic lives, or lives of
Poverty and Limited-Opportunity, as well as lives constrained by physical
disabilities and other "non-normal" chronic conditions.

That sense of disability is experienced regardless of whether those persons
are interacting with biological, psychological, or social systems Of
course, those systems also interact amongst themselves in complex ways. As
a result disadvantaged groups, almost by definition, will be more
constrained by existing media designed to allow people to probe information
within those systems so as to judges options and opportunities. As a result
disadvantaged groups will be further disadvantaged as such media becomes
ever more essential for interacting with the world around us in ways that
help us to flourish.

Perhaps a rephrasing that can be inclusive of all disadvantaged groups and
that promises greater opportunity for all could be as follows

1. We are all uniquely constrained (by the media around us) in our quest to
flourish through use of communication networks.

2. Design of inclusive media strives to reduce those unique constraints for
all. (We have an ever increasing potential now through more inclusive
design of digital networks to deliberately link a broader collective of
uniquely constrained individuals and groups into a complicated but
equitable knowledge exchange ecology through communication media build
around inclusive design principles).

3. We all flourish together when we all flourish inclusively.

Peter Pennefather,
Academic Director, Laboratory for Collaborative Diagnostics
Professor, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy
University of Toronto, 144 College St, Toronto, ON.
M5S 3M2 CANADA
cell 647-773-3987; office 416-946-7840
p.pennefather at utoronto.ca

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Lucian Timofte <luciantimofte at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Jutta,
>
> It is really refreshing to hear that we cannot separate the solid and the
> digital world. Unless I got amnesia, to me, at this point the solid and the
> digital inclusive design seem disjoint.
>
> What I would advocate for is defining (if) or refining the core principles
> of designing inclusively that can be translated in both worlds and perhaps
> beyond. And something that is capable to unify these realms.
>
> I agree that the digital is pervasive, But is not panacea. In the age of
> highest communication we get more and more disconnected from each other.
> And digital is dependent on solid world in ways we tend to forget. Cut the
> power and see what happens.
>
> And yes, I couldn't say myself better "We need people with inclusive values
> to help guide where we go with this reality."
>
> Sincerely,
> Lucian
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Treviranus, Jutta <jtreviranus at ocadu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Lucian, I love the way you have articulated this.
> >
> > I do not believe we can any longer (if we ever could) separate the solid
> > and the digital world. My view of the digital is that while it is still
> > emerging or in flux we have greater opportunities to influence the
> > direction and conventions before they are propagated .. and that the
> > digital may provide new opportunities to disrupt current inequities and
> > barriers.
> >
> > We are in a reality, in a real life, where the digital is pervasive, I
> > don’t think we can turn that back. We need people with inclusive values
> to
> > help guide where we go with this reality.
> >
> > Jutta
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 7, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Lucian Timofte <luciantimofte at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > To me, "We all are connected" is an axiom of life, regardless we
> > > acknowledge this or not. Exclusion comes when people do not acknowledge
> > the
> > > 'wires' (visible and invisible) which connect one to another. Exclusion
> > in
> > > design happens because exclusion in real life happens. But even
> > 'inclusion'
> > > or 'exclusion' are limited concepts. They get meaning through context.
> > >
> > > To me, the proposal #1 ("We all are unique") and #3 ("We all are
> > > connected") can naturally merge into a single proposal: "We all are
> > unique
> > > and connected". I would not be afraid of paradoxical wording.
> > >
> > > However, reviewing Jutta's video, I wouldn't be fully honest to salute
> > the
> > > 'A-ha' moment of it without making few notes.
> > >
> > > I think Inclusive Design with its emphasis on the digital realm is at
> > risk
> > > of divorcing from the 'solid' world. If this tendency is real,
> inclusive
> > > designers must acknowledge two things:
> > >
> > > 1. Perhaps Inclusive Design is a hat too large and it needs to be
> > > cosmeticised around the digital realm (like Digital Inclusive Design).
> > And
> > > this is perfectly fine and compliant with the objectives of the
> Inclusive
> > > Design as defined by Jutta). If not, the thing number 2 comes into
> place.
> > >
> > > 2. Inclusive Design as is now, it cuts the branch under its feet. A
> > > self-sustainable digital environment is utopian though.
> > >
> > > Lastly, as inclusive designer, theologian, thinker, parent (and not
> > only),
> > > while I applaud the good will, intentions and objectives within the
> > > Inclusive Design field, I would like to hear more debate around 'media
> > > ecology' (Jutta mentioned in one of her recent conferences about cobra
> > > effect created by Inclusive Design).
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Lucian
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Treviranus, Jutta <
> jtreviranus at ocadu.ca>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Thanks Dana and Jim,
> > >>
> > >> When I first came up with the 3 dimensions I wanted the 3rd dimension
> to
> > >> reference the need to be cognizant of the systemic impact of design
> > >> decisions… to realize that no design decision is made in
> > isolation..that we
> > >> are evermore connected and entangled… that we need to consider the
> > larger
> > >> and connected context of our designs. The first dimension focuses on
> the
> > >> individual, the third dimension focuses on the system and the context.
> > Here
> > >> is where ripple effects, curbcut phenomena, complexity theory, etc.
> > come in.
> > >>
> > >> Also the three dimensions of inclusive design are created in the
> context
> > >> of a world changed by digital systems and networks.  In this context
> we
> > are
> > >> increasingly entangled. It is very difficult to do anything in
> > isolation,
> > >> but we can also easily recruit a diverse crowd to assist.
> > >>
> > >> The one liners were intended to be headers and then mnemonics for more
> > >> nuanced and applied descriptions of the dimensions.
> > >>
> > >> thanks
> > >> Jutta
> > >>
> > >>> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:39 PM, Jim Tobias <tobias at inclusive.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks, Dana.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yeah, I'm not sure how 'we're all connected' is central to the
> message.
> > >> It's obviously true, but may be hard for some to relate to, and thus
> > create
> > >> some skeptical distance? (I'll confess that's my reaction at times.)
> > >>>
> > >>> Instead, we could tie into 'needing everyone's unique contribution'
> by
> > >> saying how important it is that we be *able* to connect with
> > >> anyone/everyone. That is, the positive externality of the 'network'
> > being
> > >> more valuable to each of us, the more people we can communicate with
> > >> through it. That would reinforce the importance of
> auto-personalization,
> > >> because you won't know in advance who you want to connect with, or
> what
> > >> their favorite mode or method will be.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would love to see this as a visualization that shows technology
> > >> changing over time, and individuals also changing over time, and
> > attempting
> > >> to massively reach out to each other through the flux. Imagine 2
> nearby
> > >> merry-go-rounds; each rider is the brass ring for another rider. Then
> > pull
> > >> back and see more merry-go-rounds in other dimensions; some riders are
> > >> people, some are digital thingies. Connections and accomplishments
> flash
> > >> around and expand the scope.
> > >>>
> > >>> Buffy Sainte-Marie background music track!
> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3uY3-O09sQ
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ***
> > >>> Jim Tobias
> > >>> Inclusive Technologies
> > >>> +1.908.907.2387 v/t
> > >>> skype jimtobias
> > >>> @inclutech
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: community [mailto:community-bounces at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca] On
> > >> Behalf Of Ayotte, Dana
> > >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:07 PM
> > >>> To: Treviranus, Jutta <jtreviranus at ocadu.ca>
> > >>> Cc: Inclusive Design Community <community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca>
> > >>> Subject: Re: [community] communicating inclusive design en masse
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi Jutta,
> > >>>
> > >>> Regarding the 3 dimensions characterization, I think the first two
> are
> > >> clear. The third “we are all connected” has got me thinking - this
> idea
> > >> doesn’t seem to be clearly captured in how we’ve described the third
> > >> dimension of “Broader Beneficial Impact<
> > >>
> >
> http://idrc.ocadu.ca/about-the-idrc/49-resources/online-resources/articles-and-papers/443-whatisinclusivedesign
> > >”.
> > >> Currently it stresses broader impact/interconnectedness of people and
> > >> systems/virtuous cycles of inclusion. I think these ideas can be
> > >> extrapolated to encompass “we are all connected”, but I don’t think
> it’s
> > >> obvious from our definition. It seems that either we need to rethink
> or
> > add
> > >> to the definition we currently have (this makes most sense to me - and
> > >> makes me think of the cause and effect exercise), or come up with a
> > >> different one-line characterization (which I’m having trouble doing!).
> > >>>
> > >>> Regarding the video, I agree with some others - I love the simplicity
> > of
> > >> it. Perhaps it could be a bit shorter/more concise.
> > >>>
> > >>> Dana
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Dana Ayotte
> > >>> Inclusive Designer
> > >>> Inclusive Design Research Centre
> > >>> OCAD University
> > >>> www.idrc.ocad.ca<http://www.idrc.ocad.ca/>
> > >>> www.ocadu.ca<http://www.ocadu.ca/>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Jul 5, 2016, at 11:43 AM, Treviranus, Jutta <jtreviranus at ocadu.ca
> > >> <mailto:jtreviranus at ocadu.ca>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I’ve been trying to distill our inclusive design theory into simple
> to
> > >> understand and quickly communicated chunks for the large scale
> workshops
> > >> (4000+ participants) planned by some of our partners.
> > >>>
> > >>> What do people think of characterizing the 3 dimensions as:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. We are all unique
> > >>> 2. We need everyone’s unique contribution 3. We are all connected
> > >>>
> > >>> Also, would anyone be willing to create a more professional version
> of
> > >> this piece I threw together many years ago:
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQEPw1x9E
> > >>>
> > >>> thanks
> > >>> Jutta
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________________
> > >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca) To manage
> > >> your subscription, please visit:
> > >> http://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________________
> > >>> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca) To manage
> > >> your subscription, please visit:
> > >> http://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
> > >>
> > >> ________________________________________
> > >> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
> > >> To manage your subscription, please visit:
> > >> http://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
> > >>
> > > ________________________________________
> > > Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
> > > To manage your subscription, please visit:
> > http://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
> >
> >
> ________________________________________
> Inclusive Design Community (community at lists.idrc.ocadu.ca)
> To manage your subscription, please visit:
> http://lists.idrc.ocadu.ca/mailman/listinfo/community
>